Eusociality is a term that has its origin in biology and ecology. It is the most extreme form of division of labor among social animals such as ants and bees. Only a few members of a colony are involved in reproduction while the vast majority carries out day-to-day chores. While the former are called queen and drones the latter are workers and soldiers and they are usually sterile.

Honeybees, for instance, have several ways to secure that reproduction remains a privilege of but a few. They decide by nutrition which one of the female larvae can become a queen. The so called royal jelly fed to a larva allows her to become a queen. Also pheromones, odors secreted by the queen, prevent larvae from becoming sexual. If this were not enough, worker policing completes the job. Worker policing describes the killing of eggs that were laid by worker bees that accidentally are not completely sterile.

Generating asexual workers and soldiers is an evolutionary advantage, of course. Getting rid of mating behavior and all those emotions and feelings attached to it keeps them focused on their chores, so no wonder that natural selection helped this trait to evolve and prevail.

It took several hundred million years for these traits to evolve though. First insects were seen about 400 million years ago, but sex determination and sterile workers evolved at the same time when Dinosaurs roamed the world. That is 250 million years ago.

Humans are much faster in that respect. They only exist for a million years on this planet and already make big steps to generate eusocial asexual workers and soldiers. The lever of control used by humans, social pressure, is much more effective than mere biological mechanisms of control. How this works, the Canadian government recently demonstrated.

Conclusively evolutionary theory is so helpful to analyze politics that’s why politicians notoriously deny it. Forgive the politicians they never understand what they are actually doing. They just act out of instinct which is evolution.

We have inherited from our forefathers the keen longing for unified, all-embracing knowledge.

We feel clearly that we are only now beginning to acquire reliable material for welding together the sum total of all that is known into a whole;

I can see no other escape from this dilemma than that some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them—and at the risk of making fools of ourselves.

EXPLANATION: In brief, TIMN theory finds that, over the ages, people have come up with four cardinal forms of organization for constructing their societies: tribes (or the T form), hierarchical institutions (the I form), markets (M), and information-age networks (N). Each form of organization has different purposes and uses, along with different philosophical and strategic implications. Each form also has both bright and dark sides, and can be used for good or ill; societies can get them wrong as well as right, in ways that affect their usage of the other forms.

Concerning evolution he further explains:

In notational terms, this means that societies have evolved across the centuries in a preferred historical progression: from monoform (T-only), to biform (T+I), to triform (T+I+M), and now potentially to quadriform (T+I+M+N) types of societies.

This theory is consistent with the fauceir theory and quite handy to explain a lot of social phenomena, so I will translate it in more detail in faucier terms.

T: The tribal form is the most ancient way to organize human social groups based on biological needs such as provision of food and propagation and it involves some elementary types of division of labor in child care, hunting, and protection.

I: I’d better call it the imperatorial or ideological form. It is the way to control larger social groups which includes institutional hierarchies and ideologies and was made possible with increased agricultural production.

M: The market form. It is the way to control different social groups across countries (imperial states). This form became dominant with the industrial revolution.

As we are talking about fauceir evolution all the forms are control units which control other fauceirs and may come under control themselves in evolutionary history. Eventually, a hierarchy is build. A hierarchy is not a divine order. On the contrary, it is the product of fierce competition, and as the element fauceirs keep evolving themselves it is like an arms race between host and parasite to keep the subdued fauceir under firm control.

The control that had been established by human social evolution is the chain of control, the Ronfeld Chain.

T < I < M < N

In summarizing human social evolutionary history, we have to recognize that most of the hunter gatherer societies up to about 30.000 years ago were dominated by tribal fauceirs. With the advent of agriculture, tribes were overruled by imperatorial fauceirs. The most ingenious innovation to keep tribal fauceirs in check was creating the family that is private tribes. But not only in families. Tribal fauceirs survived in some rare cultures and fringe groups that most often are called asocial or even criminal indicating that these fauceirs are under heavy control now.

The prime time of imperatorial fauceirs was about 10.000 years ago and since about 2.000 years we observe a steady decline of its influence. The imperatorial style of governance already existed in hunter gatherer societies which does not come as a surprise because the system of alpha males we inherited from our primate ancestors. But is was not before ideology was invented that tribal behavior could be effectively controlled across tribes. The only thing that was necessary was that a tribe accepted an ideology. We known from history how bloody business it was to spread ideology throughout several tribes.

Next step on the ladder was control by market fauceirs. Though archeological evidence proves that people traded some 60.000 years ago ( see here and and here and the references listed there) and the many activities of merchants is known from history, it was not before recently and after the industrial revolution in particular that economic fauceirs gained significant control on both imperatorial and tribal fauceirs. An insightful anecdotal evidence how this takeover took place over the centuries of industrial revolution on British Island is the history of freemasonry. Aside of secret societies, today numerous ways exist by which market fauceirs control the imperatorial ones: lobbying, the monitary system, and by corporates sponsored think tanks and NGOs to influence policy makers. Market fauceirs also force tribal ones under control. The most prominent example is the disbandment of families by economic means of coercion. Women had to work to also provide for the family and childcare was handed over to the government. According to a report by Aaron Russo it was thoroughly planned by Rockefeller. Maybe that’s true in the US, but it happened everywhere even in countries like the Soviet Union where Rockefeller had rather negligible influence, I guess. It is just what economy demands.

Next and so far final step is the takeover by the rational network fauceirs. Rational fauceirs also exist for long, but there influence on economy and ideology was rather limited. It was only with the advent of the internet and the spread of new ways of communication that the influcence of the rational network became obvious. Brexit and the Trump election are symptoms of the control shift from market to network fauceirs.

For us ordinary humans two things remain difficult to understand:

1. We are just witnessing a competition between market and network fauceirs. The market by far is not under full control yet and it will never be. The fight between these two fauceir units is fierce and will become fiercer the next years. The two fighting fauceir parties take what they can get control of as weapons, including us, the people. We people contribute in several ways to this combat. We participate as members of the imperatorial or tribal fauceirs.

2. But, we also contribute to the network simply by developing rational arguments. Any rational endeavor and exchange of opinions contributes to the network in a way that is not foreseeable. A single human individual contributing to the network has no control of the network. The network controls itself and the people contributing.

Let’s give an example. Now many people write articles like this one. In this article the authors try to explain what happened when Trump was elected, and although the authors did not find a point that I can agree with, they made a valuable contribution on how tribal fauceir control is exerted by both imperatorial and market fauceirs that can be used by the network to tap the control mechanism in the future. Therefore keep in mind that a single person’s contribution to the network might not be visible and conscious instead it might be accidental and work in a not intended direction.

Conclusively, while ready this article you were making your contribution to human social too. Thank You.

Though I agree with Bryan Malone’s point that evolution is random at times, this is not true all the time. To propose the term development for a directed process is not a perfect solution either as we observe different degrees and mechanisms among those directed processes. Instead of such a black and white picture of evolution and development, Fauceir Theory’s relatedness allows for a gradual scale between an individual’s development and the evolution at large.

David Ronfeldt has an excellent point too. His TIMN classification exactly reflects the Fauceir approach of different levels of social evolution.

EXPLANATION: In brief, TIMN theory finds that, over the ages, people have come up with four cardinal forms of organization for constructing their societies: tribes (or the T form), hierarchical institutions (the I form), markets (M), and information-age networks (N). Each form of organization has different purposes and uses, along with different philosophical and strategic implications. Each form also has both bright and dark sides, and can be used for good or ill; societies can get them wrong as well as right, in ways that affect their usage of the other forms.

And it is that these levels determine the direction of success in evolutionary adaptation. What Lesley Newson and Peter J. Richerson described in their main article is just a snapshot of that top-down control of evolution M->I->T. Economic changes (M), the concentration of production in particular, led to political changes (I), which are hailed as democracy and social security measures, eventually resulted in destruction of traditional family values (T).

Though I agree with David’s theoretical view, I fervently disagree with his opinion about Russia being just TI. This is outrageously ignorant and merely mirrors the propaganda he consumed.

Such propaganda and personal involvement, my dear colleagues, constitute the main hindrance of your comprehending the whole picture of social evolution. Given the Ronfeld Chain most of you are working for institutions that are placed either between M and I (that is your institutions receives money from economic “sponsors” and you “convince” policy makers) or you are placed between I and T (receiving governmental “grants” to “educate” the public), or both. Both of these positions render you actors in the ongoing evolutionary process, and both of these positions make you blind to understand social evolution in its complexity.

Aside of some close observations of the transformation of families praised above already, the article retreats into ideology and propaganda as soon as mechanisms at the M and I level are concerned. At this point ontological fallacies are committed repeatedly when using such vague terms such as Western/non-Western populations, democracy, modernism and so on. What the article misses out entirely is the N level. Which comes a little bit as a surprise. Scientists in all fields increasingly rely on networks to develop their ideas, on the other hand they are nearly unable to apply these practical experiences to society as a whole. And herein consists my major critique on this article as it completely blinds out the network of rational thinkers behind Trump’s success.

This is BTW is in accordance with the fauceir rule of blindness which states that fauceirs cannot perceive what is outside their scope of control. For that reason all institutions heavily involved in the Ronfeld Chain between M and T (including academics, mainstream media outlets,and intelligent agencies) miscalculated Trump’s trumps victory. And it is also typical of these institutions that they invent explanations that arelimited to the scope of their own activity,so intelligence agencies blame Russians interference as they interfere in almost all elections worldwide, the mainstream media blame fake news as they produce lies perpetually, and academicsblame tribal behavior as this is what they are allowed to study and to control. By contrast among those who anticipated Trump’s victory was Peter Thiel who as data analyst was closer to N than all the others.

The evolution of the brain from fish to modern humans is characterized by growth of the cortex (Telencephalon) while the other parts remained almost the same size.

The others simply cannot see the body of N controlling M-T much the same way as brainstem neurons cannot see that they are controlled by the cerebral cortex neurons.As with the evolution of vertebrates in societies, the body of N will grow, and this is how evolution makes me optimistic about the future.

PS.: Don’t take me wrong. I never said that Trump is the incarnation of N. Far from that. N is a fauceir, and this in Fauceir Theory means a rational control network, a system, that has no physical representation. While reading this article your brain, for instance, also belonged to it. Thank you for this valuable contribution.

Because by all their narrative they try to prepare the ground for an irrational case. But, rationality, on the contrary, strips all superfluous words.

Narrated stories promote subconscious judgments. Sometimes such stories hardly bear reference to the case in question, so they hardly support the case in a rational way. They do so irrationally, though. The mechanism is like hypnosis. In hypnosis, critical thinking is turned off, which allows to fill the memory with “facts” that never were seriously scrutinized. These so infused facts on a subconscious level influence judgment, promote irrationally.

Narrated stories stray from the main case. Stories in the way the authors put them seem tosupport the case. However, all these little stories can be rationalized in different waysthat support the opposite case. In fact, one is tempted to counter the narratives, to put the facts straight, and to make the explanation more succinct. As those stories raise additional points of contention, they work like red herrings. They provide topics a discussion can be easily locked in while keeping the main argument safe and untouched.

Examples.

Ian Morris [1] narrates stories about war. His point is always that war is terrible but the time after it is more peaceful and progressive. The question that he didn’t touch is do exist other reasons for peace and prosperity after a war? Unfortunately, after a couple of pages of lulling details only few people raise that question.

Andy McNab and Kevin Dutton [2] start their case with a story about a goatherd, an innocent young boy, who has to be killed because he accidentally watched a secret operation in order to not jeopardize the entire mission. The questions that remain unanswered in this book are was it really necessary or existed other ways to save the mission, and was the mission really worth it.

Though I admit that not all scientific novelty can be put on twitter, and some elaborate scientific theories need books to be understood, this is not true for books that support a single argument, in particular if coupled with extensive story telling.

[1] Morris, Ian. 2014. War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Applied to this article [https://evolution-institute.org/article/evolving-organizations/]: The lack of conceptual clarity creates a thicket of wordiness to disguise that deficiency. No offense intended, I just want to mention that fauceir theory that is around for years and does provide that clear concept.

For instance: social evolution as every evolution entails the co-evolution of parasites and defense mechanism. One of these parasites and the most hideous is war. But there are many of them. An other not so harmful but still quite annoying is resources wasted for meaningless research.

Being involved in a social parasite distorts the view on parasitism, so no proper ideas of fighting social parasites can be expected from parasitic research which rather puts asleep reason.